Theists, is MDB a hostile environment?

[_EAllusion]

For the atheists on this board who think that belief in God is just as clearly delusional and nonsensical as belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny:

Would you consider mathematical Platonism to be in the same category of nonsensical belief? If someone believes that abstract mathematical entities have some sort of existence independent of the human mind, is that person obviously delusional and unscientific in their view of the world?

Thinking numbers have real existence as abstracta is several orders of magnitude more reasonable than believing in classical theism. Your post seems to carry a vague implication that belief in the latter is no more iffy than belief in the former, but I think that is grounded in seeing the atheist viewpoint as some sort of naïve empiricism or whatever.

[_lostsheep]

Thinking numbers have real existence as abstracta is several orders of magnitude more reasonable than believing in classical theism. Your post seems to carry a vague implication that belief in the latter is no more iffy than belief in the former, but I think that is grounded in seeing the atheist viewpoint as some sort of naïve empiricism or whatever.

I'm trying to sort through this line of thinking myself. Why would it be several orders of magnitude more reasonable? What sort of argument would you use against a theist who did think that belief in a transcendent creator god was just as reasonable? My post was motivated by this article

http://plus.maths.org/content/philosophy-applied-mathematics

quote:

'Platonists believe that the physical world is an imperfect shadow of a realm of mathematical objects (and possibly of notions like truth and beauty as well). The physical world emerges, somehow, from this platonic realm, is rooted in it, and therefore objects and relationships between objects in the world shadow those in the platonic realm. The fact that the world is described by mathematics then ceases to be a mystery as it has become an axiom: the world is rooted in a mathematical realm.

But even greater problems then arise: why should the physical realm emerge from and be rooted in the platonic realm? Why should the mental realm emerge from the physical? Why should the mental realm have any direct connection with the platonic? And in what way do any of these questions differ from those surrounding ancient myths of the emergence of the world from the slain bodies of gods or titans, the Buddha-nature of all natural objects, or the Abrahamic notion that we are "created in the image of God"?

Indeed, the belief that we live in a divine Universe and partake in a study of the divine mind by studying mathematics and science has arguably been the longest-running motivation for rational thought, from Pythagoras, through Newton, to many scientists today. "God", in this sense, seems to be neither an object in the space-time world, nor the sum total of objects in that physical world, nor yet an element in the platonic world. Rather, god is something closer to the entirety of the platonic realm. In this way, many of the difficulties outlined above which a platonist faces are identical with those faced by theologians of the Judeo-Christian world — and possibly of other religious or quasi-religious systems.'

[_MrStakhanovite]

Abstract numbers cannot causaly interact with this universe.

[_lostsheep]

Abstract numbers cannot causaly interact with this universe.

Why not, beyond just assumming that the physical universe must be causally closed? I'm a novice at this sort of stuff, so I apologize if my questions seem naïve.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Except you don't know the sun sets in the West. In fact, you don't know that a setting sun is a reflection of reality at all. And even if you did know, the idea of West is your own construct, so it may indeed set in the North except you are calling it the West. I'm not sure what your clever story is supposed to illustrate.

“So why don’t you believe in God?”

“I just don’t see any evidence for it.”

“What are you looking for? What would it take to convince you that God was real?”

“I dunno. What would it take to convince you that the sun sets in the north?”

“The sun sets in the a right angle from the prime direction, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“I know. But what would it take to convince you that it sets in the north?”

“It doesn’t set in the north, it sets at a right angle from the prime direction, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“So your mind is made up? There’s nothing I could say that would convince you that it sets in the north?”

“Of course not.”

“So you’re closed-minded then.”

“I’m not closed-minded! That’s just the way it is!”

“Suppose I told you a really convincing story about the sun setting in the north?”

“It wouldn’t be a true story.”

“How do you know?”

“Because the sun sets a right angle from the prime direction, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“What if you saw it setting in the north. Would that convince you?”

“Ok, if I saw it actually setting in the north, that would convince me. But that will never happen, because the sun sets a right angle from the prime direction, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

V/R
Dr. Cam

“So it’s a pointless question then?”

“Pretty much.”

[_Hoops]

Except you don't know the sun sets in the West. In fact, you don't know that a setting sun is a reflection of reality at all. And even if you did know, the idea of West is your own construct, so it may indeed set in the North except you are calling it the West. I'm not sure what your clever story is supposed to illustrate.

“So why don’t you believe in God?”

“I just don’t see any evidence for it.”

“What are you looking for? What would it take to convince you that God was real?”

“I dunno. What would it take to convince you that the sun sets in the north?”

“The sun sets in the a right angle from the prime direction, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“I know. But what would it take to convince you that it sets in the north?”

“It doesn’t set in the north, it sets at a right angle from the prime direction, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“So your mind is made up? There’s nothing I could say that would convince you that it sets in the north?”

“Of course not.”

“So you’re closed-minded then.”

“I’m not closed-minded! That’s just the way it is!”

“Suppose I told you a really convincing story about the sun setting in the north?”

“It wouldn’t be a true story.”

“How do you know?”

“Because the sun sets a right angle from the prime direction, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“What if you saw it setting in the north. Would that convince you?”

“Ok, if I saw it actually setting in the north, that would convince me. But that will never happen, because the sun sets a right angle from the prime direction, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

V/R
Dr. Cam

“So it’s a pointless question then?”

“Pretty much.”

I guess I should be more clear. I suppose I don't understand how this advances your cause. I understand the futility of the scene you've constructed, but even if one were able to answer the questions you've posed in the negative (allegedly), you are still left with making these judgements experientially. You (atheists or whatever you choose) are no different than a theist.

[_Chap]

You (atheists or whatever you choose) are no different than a theist.

Of course. And people who don't collect stamps are just the same as stamp collectors.

(The phrase 'reductio ad absurdum' somehow springs to mind.)

[_Hoops]

You (atheists or whatever you choose) are no different than a theist.

Of course. And people who don't collect stamps are just the same as stamp collectors.

(The phrase 'reductio ad absurdum' somehow springs to mind.)

Ok.

And one wonders why discussion around here is so tough to come by.

[Guest]

Hoops. Let me try this again...

“So why don’t you believe in God?”

“I just don’t see any evidence for it.”

“What are you looking for? What would it take to convince you that God was real?”

“I dunno. What would it take to convince you that the sun sets thataway?”

“The sun sets at a right angle from thataway, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“I know. But what would it take to convince you that it sets thataway?”

“It doesn’t set thataway, it sets at a right angle from thataway, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“So your mind is made up? There’s nothing I could say that would convince you that it sets thataway?”

“Of course not.”

“So you’re closed-minded then.”

“I’m not closed-minded! That’s just the way it is!”

“Suppose I told you a really convincing story about the sun setting thataway?”

“It wouldn’t be a true story.”

“How do you know?”

“Because the sun sets at a right angle from thataway, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

“What if you saw it setting thataway. Would that convince you?”

“Ok, if I saw it actually setting thataway, that would convince me. But that will never happen, because the sun sets at a right angle from thataway, that is closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun.”

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Chap]

You (atheists or whatever you choose) are no different than a theist.

Of course. And people who don't collect stamps are just the same as stamp collectors.

(The phrase 'reductio ad absurdum' somehow springs to mind.)

Ok. And one wonders why discussion around here is so tough to come by.

I can't say I have noticed a lot of discussion on the part of Hoops. It's usually more a matter of 'You don't understand the Bible' or 'Sure, you're always right aren't you?' one-liners.

In such cases, Proverbs 26, 4-5 really gives one a difficult call in deciding how to answer.